(PS) Ortiz v. Mull, 2:25-cv-00028

Plaintiff Henry Ortiz, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a first amended complaint alleging wrongful actions by agents or employees of two apartment complexes and related individuals after incidents involving an eviction and subsequent residency.
Ortiz stated he experienced multiple retaliatory tows of his vehicle, unfulfilled repair and accommodation promises, and retaliatory eviction notices after asserting his rights and filing complaints.
He alleged the defendants acted in concert with law enforcement and local authorities to harass and surveil him, resulting in constructive eviction and emotional distress.
Ortiz asserted six claims: due process and equal protection violations, retaliation, ADA violation, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), evaluating whether the allegations stated a federal claim or fell within the court's jurisdiction.
The court dismissed the federal claims for insufficient factual specificity and failure to establish state action, granting leave to amend the complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA claim	Defendants violated his ADA rights as a disabled tenant	Not public entities; apartments not public accommodations	FAC does not state claim under ADA
§1983/state action due process/equal protection	Defendants, acting with state actors or under color of law, violated rights	Defendants are private parties, not state actors	No sufficient allegations of state action or constitutional claim
Retaliation/Fair Housing Act	Defendants retaliated for protected activity related to his disability	Allegations are conclusory; no causal link	No facts to support FHA retaliation or discrimination claim
State-law claims (breach/IIED)	Defendants breached promises and caused severe distress	Not reached (pending dismissal of federal claims)	Not addressed; supplemental jurisdiction declined

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must include factual content that allows a reasonable inference of liability)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint requires more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (to state a §1983 claim requires deprivation of a right by one acting under color of state law)
Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (due process protection requires deprivation of liberty or property interests)
Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158 (equal protection claim requires intent to discriminate based on protected class)
United States v. Cal. Mobile Home Park Mgmt., 107 F.3d 1374 (elements of FHA reasonable accommodation claim)